Breaking the Code

I don't believe it at all.

My believe Deaf people can sucessfully life without no speech tranining.

It is only use brian to work to see visable than waste to learn speech..


I never trust in speech traning because some Deaf people already fool up into the hearing world.

STFU hearing world.
 
GoldenLeaf74 said:
I don't believe it at all.

My believe Deaf people can sucessfully life without no speech tranining.

It is only use brian to work to see visable than waste to learn speech..


I never trust in speech traning because some Deaf people already fool up into the hearing world.

STFU hearing world.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you need to make language visable to the Deaf, use ASL. No reason to invent another manual system.
 
loml said:
Cued English/Cued Speech is based on phonemes, not phonetics. A phonemes is: the smallest sound unit which, in terms of the phonetic sequences of sound, controls meaning.

Dr. Cornett created Cued Speech because he was deeply concerned about the literacy skills of deaf children. It is all about literacy, always has been always will be.

ps: good links Boult!
Click to expand...

And phonemes are only useful when spoken. It is then that they provide discriminatory cues between morphemes or words. And what is a phoneme when based on a consistent way of pronunciation? Pronunciation is based on phonics--the way to say the phoneme. I have a varied background in linguistics and am perfectly aware of the relationship between phonemes and phonetics.
 
jillio said:
And phonemes are only useful when spoken. It is then that they provide discriminatory cues between morphemes or words. And what is a phoneme when based on a consistent way of pronunciation? Pronunciation is based on phonics--the way to say the phoneme. I have a varied background in linguistics and am perfectly aware of the relationship between phonemes and phonetics.
Click to expand...

You may have a varied background in linguistics, but you do not understand cueing.
 
And if it is so successful in teaching literacy skills, why has it been around for so long, yet is so rarely used?
Click to expand...

It isn't used as rarely as you may think.

When people don't understand or afraid they are quick to be negative.
 
Internalized appropriate phonemic bases are only necessary if one is also attempting to internalized an aural/auditory language
Click to expand...

Which is how people learn language. Why make something extremely difficult to do, when cueing the language allows the language to be internalized.

Handshapes in CS make those phonemes which are not easily speechread visable through the handshape. Why? For increased efficiency in lipreading and speech production.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that CS was never created for speech therapy,(which I tire of having to mention yet again to you), if it does increase effeciency in lipreading and speech production, why is that a problem for you?


If you need to make language visable to the Deaf, use ASL. No reason to invent another manual system.
Click to expand...

It has never been suggested the Cued English/Cued Speech replace ASL, in fact the work very well together. Speak of what you know and stop spreading rubbish.
 
jillio said:
Yep. Once agian, you have proven my point. Why do we need to make phonic construction of words visable--because we are teaching an aural/auditory based language. Phonics are only useful auditorily. Handshapes in CS make those phonemes which are not easily speechread visable through the handshape. Why? For increased efficiency in lipreading and speech production. Internalized appropriate phonemic bases are only necessary if one is also attempting to internalized an aural/auditory language.

I'm not saying CS is not useful. What I am saying is that it is another articficial system of making English visable. The Deaf sure as h*** didn't come up with it. And if it is so successful in teaching literacy skills, why has it been around for so long, yet is so rarely used?
Click to expand...
What loml say is what I want to say.

And if it is so successful in teaching literacy skills, why has it been around for so long, yet is so rarely used?
Click to expand...
It's because people like you shun it. just like they shun oral, pse, see or other communication tools that are NOT ASL.

It is not rarely used. It has been used all over the world which you didn't know! why? because decade ago, they didn't have website. Those who knew about it are thru word of mouth and school like CID or such. now that NCSA formed a website 6 yrs ago at National Cued Speech Association now, it has presence and I can see that it is growing and getting attention. Cued Speech is used internationally: CUEDSPEECH.org > About NCSA > Affiliates > CS Around the World
 
GoldenLeaf74 said:
I don't believe it at all.

My believe Deaf people can sucessfully life without no speech tranining.

It is only use brian to work to see visable than waste to learn speech..


I never trust in speech traning because some Deaf people already fool up into the hearing world.

STFU hearing world.
Click to expand...
cued speech is not about learning speech. still clueless. NEXT!
 
loml said:
You may have a varied background in linguistics, but you do not understand cueing.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do understand cueing, and have studied not only applications, but history of such. Perhaps you should do the same.
 
What you type may be your slanted, ASL linguisitc pseudo- understanding of cueing...but quite frankly, you do not get it.
 
loml;
I'm not going to get into a ridiculas argument with you regarding my understanding of cueing as you are obviously not open minded enough to see past your own narrow minded point of view. This argument has been going on for years, ans still boils down to one simple point--language acquisition for deaf children, and the best way to accomplish that. Perhaps you choose not to delve into the subject deeply enough to grasp all of the psychosocial and psycholinguistic aspects of such, and that is certainly your choice. Leave it to say that the scholarly research as well as the anecdotal evidence supports my statements.
 
loml said:
Which is how people learn language. Why make something extremely difficult to do, when cueing the language allows the language to be internalized.



Besides the fact that CS was never created for speech therapy,(which I tire of having to mention yet again to you), if it does increase effeciency in lipreading and speech production, why is that a problem for you?




It has never been suggested the Cued English/Cued Speech replace ASL, in fact the work very well together. Speak of what you know and stop spreading rubbish.
Click to expand...


Exactly, why make it so difficult by forcing the deaf to rely on arbitrary and misunderstood lipreading and resisdual hearing. If visual ccues are necessary for understnading, there is a system that has been in use and has developed into a natural and sophistocated language--the language of signs. Manual communication also allows the language to be internalized.


How in the hell can CS and ASL work in combination? You can't cue and sign at the same time! And if Asl is already in place providing the visual cues necessary for comprehension, then why is another manual system needed?

I don't have a problem with the fact that CS has, through anecdotal evidence, produced increased skill in lipreading and speech production. But only for a limited number of people.

And if it is not so rarely used, why is that you seem to be on the bandwagon for a system that was created so many years ago, and has become popular, then lost popularity so many times. If the system is so effective, why isn't the system of preference in deaf education? Why don't all deaf individuals jump on the bandwagon, claiming, "Oh! Here is what I've needed all my life to understand English!"

Do you use CS? Do you use CS to teach your children language? Do you use CS to understand the communications of the English sspeaking hearing world? Is it something you practice everyday? Have you ever visted, in person, a classroom of hh/deaf students being taught language with CS, and observed the results? Do you have replicable, experimental studies that support the claims you make? I think not. So perhaps it is you who shsould speak of what they know.
 
Boult said:
What loml say is what I want to say.

It's because people like you shun it. just like they shun oral, pse, see or other communication tools that are NOT ASL.

It is not rarely used. It has been used all over the world which you didn't know! why? because decade ago, they didn't have website. Those who knew about it are thru word of mouth and school like CID or such. now that NCSA formed a website 6 yrs ago at National Cued Speech Association now, it has presence and I can see that it is growing and getting attention. Cued Speech is used internationally: CUEDSPEECH.org > About NCSA > Affiliates > CS Around the World
Click to expand...

I don't shun it. I simply say that the use is very very limited. You take any criticism of anything you believe to be a personal attack. Get over yourself. If you have such strong evidence to support your claims, then you shouldn't be afraid of a little confrontation.

Surely you don't think that the information jusst became available because they have a website now. The information has been out there for years. Do a little readding, and you will find out more than a simple website that supports CS can provide you.

For instance, where, and with what successs, it is used internationally? How does the international Deaf population feel about CS. Got any stats on improved literacy rates--other thatn "he said, she said" anecdotal evidence.

Use something more than your narrow minded I'll buy anything as long as it isn't ASL attitude to convince me how wonderful this system is and how it is going to revolutionize the literacy of the deaf worldwide.
 
Back
Top